[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

measuring activity
there are always going to be people who get bored and quit, perhaps after 36 hours, perhaps after 72 hours, whatever. making the shuffle later could alleviate this problem, and i think it's already been considered if you look back at posts throughout the thread. the alternative to this is to just plonk planets randomly. would you prefer this? do you have a better way of placing planets based on activity?

You are right, people will get bored and quit. Those are not the ones I am concerned about with this issue, rather the ones that will readily cheat by abusing this system. I think we all desire to see a game that is fair top to bottom while still eliminating as much cheating as possible. A latter shuffle time is one method. SO is sending them randomly without regard to activity as well as an earlier shuffle. My point is this, PATeam needs to do what will have the least perceived impact on the game as possible. A later tick start puts a great deal of pressure on the multihunters to move fast but being accurate. Not a job I would relish in a community where even the slightest analysis is met with unwarranted hostility.

A potential solution is deleting all accounts that have not logged in during the 36 hour period and randomly dispersing all non-buddy pack planets. This way no bias can be claimed or faulty reasoning on activity. There is no incentive for someone to fain activity. While basing the shuffle on active appears to be desirable on the surface I am not sure that it would cause more grief than a complete random shuffle, after all ‘old skool” PA was completely random and exile option still exist.

If the shuffle was to take place based on activity then perhaps a quotient could be used to gauge activity. Perhaps (resources spent / resources earned) as a simple formula for a percentage gauge. Or perhaps a value % increase using a base line to be determined, perhaps quartiles or quintiles of value growth were the 1st quartile is distributed first evenly across the universe, the second quartile next and so on.

Originally Posted by mist

multi planets for position
this is going to be a problem for any shuffle. therefore, solutions are either for the multi hunters to be looking closely at things, or not not have a shuffle. not having a shuffle means either randoms (in which case you have the same problem) or 100% private gals, which despite what some would like arn't feasable if the game wishes to keep going. therefore, i can see no solution to this problem other than vigalence, do you have one?

You left out completely random galaxies, although I think this is no better solution than ignoring the issue because it always been a problem. And as I said that was my first past at the issue and needed more time to consider options as opposed to spouting a nonsensical solution or throwing my hands up. Perhaps a solution exist that hasn’t occurred to anyone before or one that has been suggested but ignored and never acted upon. That is the point of the thread to find the flaws and propose workable solutions.

Originally Posted by mist

lack of galaxies
there seem to be two issues interacting here - the initial gal sizes and the adding of new members later on. first things first:
galaxies all have to have the same number of buddy packs in, be it 1, 2 or 3. therefore, in order to 'fix' your problem, would you suggest that galaxies only have one buddy pack in, and therefore the game runs with about 5 player galaxies?
wrt adding people later on. either people are added to existing galaxies, they might actually get in with someone who'll show them the game etc etc, they might even play again. the alternative is that they start in a glaxy in a high cluster, where there's noone to show them how to play and they're a farm. they might add a couple of hundred roids to the universe before they decide the game's shit and leave. yes, you get a few extra galaxies, but none of them are actually targets anyway.

Perhaps new galaxies should be allowed to be created but giving the new players the options of joining existing galaxies or creating a new one if they choose to utilize buddy packs. But the only way a new galaxy is created is if there is not enough room for another buddy pack in an existing galaxy (utilizing the 2x3/3x2 system). If a new player chooses to go solo – no buddy pack – then they are distributed evenly across the universe. If they choose to sign up as a buddy pack (having the option of 1 or 2 mates) then they are either shuffled in to an existing galaxy with room for a buddy pack or a new galaxy is created. If a new galaxy is created then new players will be added to that galaxy until it reaches the mean or median size. Even with that I do believe a preset size should be set that galaxies do not go past. This is just to keep the game play active and not stagnating.

Originally Posted by mist

therefore, solutions are to make gals with 5 players inc. one buddy pack at the start, or for alliances to get smaller. have you considered that the lack of targets in the universe might be because your alliance is too big?

I don’t believe 100 planet alliance is too big. Besides alliances are the life blood of this game, they have been since I started playing in round 2 and that does not seem to have changed during my several round absence. There are numerous reasons targets get scarce, part is surely because of alliance restrictions, partly due to stat imbalances, part due an individuals planet size and so forth and do on. And I believe there are alternative solutions if one cares enough to work to find them. I have suggested a couple above and have no doubt there are many more viable options out there.

Originally Posted by mist

anyway, tbh, i don't expect the planets that join the game after tick 72 to be worth attacking by anyone in a large alliance, so i doubt that'll have much effect.

Well I hope you are wrong. But beyond that, presumably Jolt is trying to attract new players all the time and hopefully some of those that join after tick 72 will pick the game up and do well. But that aside, new prime targets for the large alliances to roid isn’t what the purpose here is supposed to be. The goal is to get new players to try PA and hopefully pay to play and stay a Jolt customer for a long time.

Originally Posted by mist

later buddy packs:
personally, i think that forming a new galaxy with 3 people in after the first few days of the round wil consign them to death. woohoo, they're dead with their mates. imo, putting people in galaxie where they're not automatically targets is more important than them being in buddy packs. plus, i can see all sorts of problems with people using the buddy packs to fly around the universe as the round progresses if they're not disabled.

Giving players the option on how they join the game would enhance Jolts ability to attract new players. Undoubtedly some will choose to join randomly and possibly some will want to buddy pack, they should have that option. As I believe a system can be constructed that can accommodate this choice without consigning any planet to death I think it is worth greater consideration. I have list several options above.

Originally Posted by mist

spy planets:
again, this is an issue with all setups other than 100% private. admittedly, a spy can watch more planets in a larger gal, however the amount of planets who'll actually care they're being watched doesn't seem that much bigger, as they'll pretty much be confined to the buddy packs

Who will be confined to buddy packs, certainly not the spies. As I stated earlier merely because the solution doesn’t slap us in the face with its obvious nature doesn’t mean we need to throw up our hands and consider it and unsolvable problem.

Originally Posted by mist

what solution would you suggest, with regard to later planet placement? are you all for dumping them out in the cold where they'll play for a few days and then leave, so that alliances have to worry less about spies? or so that (bloated?) alliances can pretend to have more targets, while not actually being able to hit any more? because this is how it sounds. if you have a better suggestion i'm all ears, however thus far, you don't seem to...

-mist

mist, I am not sure why you see to think one needs all the solutions in order to post to this thread, nor am I sure why you have so much hostility toward alliances, but as I stated in my earlier post it was a first pass and more would come. I also think it helpful for people to voice their concerns even with out solutions such you have in the post I am quoting. Perhaps if we talk through the issues and work to find the solutions rather than trowing up our hands and saying there are no solutions then we can help PATeam/Jolt develop PA into a better game.